1. One reason that Sumerian has been
difficult to relate toany known language is that
transcription is still quite
faulty.Otherwise the correspondences here
would be even greater.

2. These difficulties are apparent in
variant Sumerianlogograms which the Oriental scholars have
given the sametranscription and which are distinguished
only by numbere.g. SA 1, SA 2, SA 3, etc.Recourse to Latvian shows that each of these
logogramsare DIFFERENT words or
syllables,varying by end consonant and
/or length of vowels.e.g. Sumerian SA4 is Latvian SAUCbut Sumerian
SA5 is Latvian SARtsand Sumerian SA 6 is Latvian
SALds

3. The assessment that Sumerian H (diacritical mark below the letter)is equivalent to
guttural CH as in German ICHappears to be incorrect.
Rather, it seems to correspondto the fricatives (unvoiced
and voiced) TS / DZor to the palatalized consonants G = DJ
or K = TJ in Latvian.

4. There is evidence that Sumerian SH (S + diacritical above)also included CH- as a sound. See CHAP-, CHUP-,
SHUP-.

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL NOTES

A. The Time Factor. Sumerian and modern Latvian are
separated by 5000 years at least, so that perfect matches
should not be expected in all cases.No single word is
decisive, but the sum is enough to show the
relation.

B.Purely hypothetical proto-Indo-European “reconstructed”
rootshave not been used here for comparison because these
arein my opinion inaccurate and will be amended considerablyby the linguists
once one sees that there is a confluenceof many Sumerian
and proto-Indo-European terms.

C.The linguists have also FAILEDto take old grammatical elements as preserved in
Latvian(and to some degree in Lithuanian) into
account:These grammatical and linguistic elements
are:

1. The prefix PA- / BA- (= extension or localization of space),also the
prefix AP- or AB- (see Muehlenbachs-Endzelins) is both a
separateword as well as an agglutinated element. Linguists
have ignored it, erroneously.

4. The Latvian directional prefixes IE, AIZ-, IZ-
and UZ-meaning on, behind, after, in, above, out of, etc. and
derivingfrom the word for the self ES or ASH,
have not been recognized. AIZ and UZ can
also be separate terms or agglutinated to
words.

6. As shown by Sivan in Northwest Semitic
texts,forms such as NA-SHIM from the above Latvian
-SHIMare later nasalized forms, which did not exist
in proto-Indo-European.

7. in Latvian, the direct object is often the
subject - also in Sumerian,e.g. manu maju duodu (I give my house, but literally my
house give I),whence, end u-forms in Sumerian are NEVER
nominative.

Nearly 200 years ago, Franz Bopp - the founder of
comparative linguistics - alleged the origin of inflection in
the agglutination of demonstrative pronouns,but, alas, no
one paid any attention to him.Many of the elements above
are AGGLUTINATIVE in nature in Latvian(as also in
Sumerian).

There is no J in Sumerian. The few words in
Latvianbeginning with J appear to be orthographic
modernisms,going back to long vowels a, e, or i forms (ae,
ee, ii)or to the diphthongs ai, ie, ei or uo.This is
also true for word-interpositional
J.